A cop's perspective of the news and South Sound matters

June 7, 2011 9:19 pm

At some point in our country’s recent history, our starched presidential campaign has taken the form of a reality TV show. This has opened the door for some interesting new characters for “Oval Office: Season 2012,” which is already a ratings winner.

The first Blue Carpet poseur of 2012 was none other than the Donald. Trump and his running mate (the Combover) captured the attention of more than a few in the Republican base. His heavily vetted buzzwords echoed loudly in the dry GOP valley once home to herds of viable candidates. But once the Ego was mollified, Trump delivered a succinct fare-thee-well and walked, or rather swaggered, back to his successful “Apprentice” show with a ratings boost only an amoral man of commerce could enjoy.

Now we have Palin. Or maybe she has us.

Sarah Palin as recurring character in the presidential docu-comedy currently has otherwise rational reporters scrambling to follow her bus as it meanders a path that even the Rogue claims she doesn’t know in advance. Yet Palin always seems to pop up wherever there’s a large rally already underway–that’s the type of coincidence that would make a lesser entertainer blush.

Mostly, the reporters seem to be waiting for her to admit she’s not running for president (her own “Gotcha!” moment), but it seems she likes to dangle reporters much like the salmon she hooked on her other reality show.

The problem with Palin is not her passion, which clearly is great. Nor is the problem her ability to appeal to voters, which is considerable given her in-your-face tenacity and physical appearance. Nor is it her politics, which conservatives eagerly embrace. The problem with Sarah Palin is this.

She’s. Not. Very. Bright.

To give her credit, Palin was roughly thrust into the spotlight during the last presidential election, so her early mental errors (remember the Katie Couric interview?) could be excused to some extent. But now that she’s quit her day job as an elected official she’s had ample time on her hands to brush up on going rogue and being a better grizzly mama.

Based on her now famously rambling and utterly inaccurate statements about Paul Revere’s famous ride, it is clear Palin’s time would have been better spent studying extemporaneous speaking and American history instead. Her quotes from The Trib article suggest not only a laissez faire attitude about history and scholarship, but a rather arrogant attachment to an absolutely incorrect answer. In a rare example, Palin’s own Fox News was forced to point out her errors, and then follow up on the debacle.

Fortunately for Palin there is no I.Q. requirement for the job of President of The United States. However, we have the world’s largest and most complex economy, a highly trained military active in numerous conflicts throughout the world, a sophisticated and dominant role in global politics, and a host of other inter-connected agencies, entities and responsibilities that require an extreme amount of mental agility.

To his credit the Donald quickly realized the depth of the money pit we call our country, and how thankless (in dollars) the task of managing that corporation would be. Now if Sarah Palin would only realize that her talents are better suited to preaching her brand of conservatism to her pre-ordained choir, the quicker we could get onto the real show.

Subscribe

Anyway, what does “IQ” have to do with the ability to lead? Woodrow Wilson was a brilliant man (President of Princeton University before POTUS), yet was probably one of this country’s worst presidents. I only wish Obama was stupid, at least then he’d have an excuse for the damage he and the rest of the progressives (in both parties) are doing to this country.

Dems or repubs, ALL of them are liars and cheaters. They make a ton of promises in their respective campaigns to the voters and once elected fall back to their campaign donors long lists of gimme gimme….

Absolutely disgusting… Ive lost faith in the process and back 9 results of the political system.

The left can preach thier bs just like the right and the end result is always what big corporation wants regardless of the peoples vote.

For a more contemporary example, see Jimmy Carter. He’s a very smart guy, but he was a terrible president. Intelligence has nothing to do with politics.

Sarah Palin is able to capture the attention of every major media outlet. Whatever the reason, be it her tenacity, her appearance, or event just hopefulness that she’ll make a fool of herself, people want to watch her and hear what she has to say. She could do any number of things with that appeal, but she chooses to use it to promote the political views of herself and others like her. She and they have the right to speak their minds and use whatever reasonable means they want to enter into the public debate, just as those on the left do.

The tone of the last sentence of his blog post suggests that Brian thinks only those with a serious chance of winning the election should be contributing to the debate — and hints that only the left side really needs to be heard. Barring some unforseen fusion with Bizarro World, Sarah Palin will never be president. Neither will Al “I-invented-the-internet” Gore. Just the same, when these folks talk (and others similarly adept at grabbing attention, yet utterly incapable of recapturing a public office), people on their respective sides of the political aisle want to listen.

Were I an adherent to Sarah Palin’s politics, I’d want her out in the media every day, even though I know she’ll never lead this country. And although I’m not one of her followers, I still want her out there… not because her missteps benefit her opponents, but because she’s one short, but vital step above a novelty candidate. She can raise issues and force a discussion that might otherwise be ignored, but without posing any real danger of being in a position to control what decisions get made.

There are only 535 people in the US that elect the president, and even fewer have the ability to influence how he (or she, someday) makes their decisions. By having people like Sarah Palin threatening a presidential bid, a sizeable section of the population gets, at the very least, the satisfaction of knowing that whoever the president will be, he or she has been forced to publicly address the issues that are of importance to them.

The Trib has given this column the option of open discussion on a number of topics, much like its readers are given leeway regarding comments not normally allowed under The Trib’s decency standards. Having said that, I wonder about the standard used when labeling someone a liberal based on their lack of preference for ONE potential Republican candidate.

Well since your writing your opinion blog, why not just express your REAL and TRUTHFUL opinions of your political preference? Is your truth to your readers of this blog to much to ask? It would appear your always trying to bait your readers in some sort of way…

And with your prior writing to include this one, it leads most of us to believe your political beliefs swing way left. There is nothing wrong with it, as i respect anyone’s opinion although i may agree to disagree.

People always respect a truthful opinion even though they may not agree with it.

Your post credits one non-viable candidate for getting out of a race he was never in, and implies another should do the same. In fact, you flat out said Palin should preach to her own choir. Unless I misunderstood your message, you’re saying she shouldn’t be sharing her opinions publicly with those who don’t agree with her. That, and the fact that you only cited republican examples, lead me to assume political bias. I’m not saying that bias is necessarily a bad one, just saying I felt it was a reasonable assumption. If that was wrong: sorry, my bad.

Still, you have to admit that there are worse things than being called partisan. At least on this thread you didn’t have to read one of LibertyBell’s incoherent rants about the Ku Klux Klan and “Queen Christine’s Krooked Kops”… yet.

You may rest assured that I will stand by every word in this blog, and I would further state that attempting to label people might say more about you than about the person you’re judging. People, especially Americans, are complex characters who don’t always fit nice and snug into the same red or blue box.

If you want to know what I’m about you can click on my name under the title, or just keep reading and we’ll learn more as we go.

Free speech is inviolable. That is both my opinion as well as the law of the land. Politicians should feel free to share their views, or in Palin’s case, let her freak flag fly. This individual doesn’t have the mental capacity for the job of president, and her continued presence on our TV screens means we’re not getting a better look at the folks who are both viable and capable candidates.

If she goes back to her job at Fox she can run her mouth until the glaciers melt.

Like I said before, educational degrees or so called IQ doesn’t make anyone a leader. I don’t follow the idea that Palin is “stupid” – that is simply a construct of the daily show and other followers of the left. I don’t support Palin as a GOP candidate, but not because I think she’s stupid, but because the left has managed to vilify her beyond repair. What’s most disturbing to me is that the left – the so-called “party of tolerance” seem to have a real grudge against women and minorities on the right, as if both of those groups (IE, anyone not white male rednecks clinging to their guns and bibles) should be voting democratic.. I could spend all day listing all of Obama’s and Biden’s idiocy (Every time Biden opens his mouth it’s pure comedy gold) but somehow the press gives this administration a pass.

And free speech is not inviolable, nor is it the law of the land. Go to any college campus and you’ll find out just how suppressed free speech truly is – in the one place where free speech should be. Conformity and political correctness is the law. Do you really think i could hang a NAZI flag in my dorm room on campus? The supreme court had ruled time and again that “reasonable” restrictions on what we’d normally consider “inviolable” rights. College campuses – PUBLIC institutions – have unlimited powers to restrict anything they don’t like, including those “inviolable” laws of the land.

Private businesses and homes have every right to limit what goes on in their establishments, if they can navigate the regulations, red tape and restrictions the government has felt the need to apply to them. Want to serve alcohol in your restaurant? You need a license. Want to allow people to smoke in your business? Forget it. Want to have a band play in your bar? Got a zoning permit, and I hope your neighbors don’t complain. Want to add an addition to your house? If the home owners association doesn’t complain (fat chance), you’ll need all sorts of permits and licenses to do so. Want to ingest a mushroom that otherwise grows wild in the forests? Only if you don’t get caught by the police.

I challenge anyone sitting on their couch, to look around at their possessions and themselves and ask “just what doesn’t the government have their sticky fingers all over it? And anything you do happen to find, ask yourself “just what is the government doing to try and impose it’s will on it”?

It’s sickening. And it’s these so-called intellectuals, these self professed elite, that we stupidly elect into office, those idiots that know what’s good for us, and aren’t afraid to legislate everything that will make them or their buddies a buck, that have gotten us to this tipping point. It’s not one party. It’s not one system. It’s the whole.

Seriously, Brian, aren’t you sick of the revolving door justice system? It’s not the cop’s fault. It’s not the judges fault. It’s not the district attorneys, or the defense attorneys. It’s the PEOPLE that have gotten us to the point where repeat offenders are turned loose on society. They complain about crime, yet don’t want to pay for bigger jails. And even if they DO vote to raise money for new jails, they refuse to allow those jails to be built in their backyards (NIMBY). And even if by some miracle a plot of land if found, the EPA will come in and declare that some stupid rat was found living there that is on an endangered species list and you can’t build on that property.

Instead of regurgitating what the daily show spouted last night about how stupid Palin is, why don’t you vent a bit about more important issues you’ve found to be a problem in our local community? Just a thought. Perhaps you can use your bully pulpit for GOOD, instead of biased political rants. If I want that, I’d tune into Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart.

Brian i simply, as you put it, “label you’ because of your writings…just as a piece of evidence would lead you in a certain direction of an investigation. It is what it is…

I personally have befiefs that cross both red and blue, which is why i support neither party. Im a champion for envirormnetal and animal issues and believe in small government and personal accountability. Which as we all know puts me in neither the left or right if we want to go by standard paryt beliefs.

Your post is about Sarah Palin not being very bright. Your problem, though, doesn’t seem to be with her so much as with the media. She’s a pundit, not a declared candidate. It’s the media that are making a big deal of her.

She has no duty to the public to make a declaration of her intended involvement in this election according to anyone’s timetable but her own.

I have to agree with some of the other posters here, in that I’m not sold on her being as stupid as the soundbites make her out to be. I’m not saying she’s a Rhodes Scholar, but you have to admit that a decidedly left-leaning mainstream media is not inclined to portray her in her best light… just as they are inclined to sweep the current president’s gaffes under the rug. Which is not to say that Barack Obama doesn’t have a higher IQ than Sarah Palin, I’m sure he does. I’m just saying that degrees from Harvard and Columbia in and of itself doesn’t make you a genius… remember, George W. Bush has degrees from both Harvard and Yale.

I said before, Palin will never be president, but she can force the discussion of issues that other more viable candidates will skate around. That’s an important role to play in modern elections.

I said before, Palin will never be president, but she can force the discussion of issues that other more viable candidates will skate around. That’s an important role to play in modern elections.

Ok, name one. Have you ever heard her say something intelligent about anything? I haven’t. Other than whining about “lamestream” media and their gotcha questions like “What have you been doing in Boston?” can you think of anything she’s added to any discussion? I remember her being the primary purveyor of the Death Panels lie. Anything else?

That’s kinda the point of Brian’s post. She doesn’t add anything to any debate. There are many serious conservatives that she’s stealing airtime from with her circus and its only purpose is to enrich her… not to help the country.

Here’s a short 7 minute video arguing to demolish both political parties. A good watch for those of you with open minds who HAVEN’T been corrupted by some college professor pushing his university’s agenda…

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.